A.ARULDOSS Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court') in I.D. No. 669 of 2001, dated 6.3.2003 and for a consequential direction to the Respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. The facts as they emerge from the record fall within a very narrow compass. The petitioner was initially engaged by the railways as casual labour on daily wages from 1980. He was granted temporary status from August 1980 and was subsequently, confirmed as Khalasi with effect from 1.10.1991. While working under the control of the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Basin Bridge, the petitioner absented himself from duty unauthorisedly from 6.7.1995 to 7.11.1995, without proper authority and without adhering to Railway Medical Rules. A charge sheet dated 29.12.1995, was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation for the said unauthorised absence. The petitioner by his explanation dated 19.1.1996, stated that he was suffering from severe jaundice and fever and therefore, he could not attend duty and requested to treat the period of unauthorised absent as leave due on his account. The petitioner enclosed a medical certificate issued by the Private Medical Practitioner. The petitioner was referred to the Railway Medical Officer, who issued a fitness certificate dated 8.11.1995, but declared the period of absence not covered under sick leave as per Railway Medical Leave Rules. The said order was passed under Rule 521 of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, which deals with Railway Medical Attendance Leave Rules. The Railway Administration was not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner and enquiry was conducted and opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. However, the communication sent to the petitioner from the enquiry officer has returned with the postal endorsement "addressee not found" and subsequent communication sent, was also returned with the same postal endorsement. Thereafter, the enquiry advice was pasted in the notice board and another letter was handed over to the petitioner in person under acknowledgment and the petitioner did not appear. Subsequently, the enquiry was adjourned and the petitioner appeared in the enquiry and admitted the charges levelled against him and the enquiry officer submitted a report accordingly. The disciplinary authority accepted the report and removed the petitioner from service with effect from 28.8.1997. The appellate authority as well as revisional authority confirmed the said punishment. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 699 of 2001, challenging the order of dismissal from service.

(2.) Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as W.W. 1, but no documents were marked. On the side of the management, there was no oral evidence, but eight documents were marked as Exhibits M-1 to M-8. The Labour Court then decided the question as to whether the punishment of dismissal passed against the petitioner was justified. After considering the entire facts as well as taking note of the fact that the petitioner was chronic absentee, dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his argument only as regards the proportionality of penalty and submitted that for the charge of unauthorised absence, the petitioner should not have been removed from service.